header-logo header-logo

28 June 2024 / Tom McNeill
Issue: 8077 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Environment , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Assuming guilt?

179423
Removing legal protections for company bosses won’t clean up our waterways, argues Tom McNeill

Labour plans to stop sewage polluting our rivers and seas include the eye-catching proposal: ‘Water bosses who oversee repeated law-breaking will face criminal charges.’ What does this mean? The law already contains provisions which allow for company officers to be prosecuted if environmental offences committed by the company are proved to have been committed with their ‘consent’, ‘connivance’, or ‘attributable to their neglect’. Those found guilty risk going to jail.

Guilt can be assumed

Comments from the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, suggest that the intention is changing the law to remove the requirement to prove such individual fault by senior managers when there is repeated serious offending by the company. When it comes to water company bosses, the idea appears to be that guilt can be assumed.

On 9 May, Mr Reed told the Commons: ‘The environmental regulator has today condemned the disgusting state of our waterways caused by the Conservatives letting water companies pump them full of raw sewage.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll